My sympathies for the DC statehood movement are limited at best, but after reading this morning’s Post, even those minimal feelings are diminished further:

Three District veterans of the war in Iraq yesterday appealed to the U.S. House of Representatives to extend a provisional floor vote to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton when Congress reconvenes today, saying they risked their lives to bring democracy to Baghdad only to return home without a vote in America’s capital.”The maximum is what my buddies and I are pledged to give,” said Army Reserve Spec. Isaac Lewis, 26. “We believe that voting representation is not too much to ask in return.”

Am I the only one who objects to using the strong emotions wrought by our involvement in Iraq to lobby for expanded DC congressional representation? I thank these soldiers for their service, but that has absolutely no bearing on Norton’s job description. Later in the article:

[22-year-old Emory Kosh] called a limited House vote a “good beginning” but less than the rights Iraqi citizens expect to enjoy at month’s end.

Points to the Post for noting that Kosh didn’t just walk in off the street — he’s an aide to Norton. So, she’s enlisted her employee to argue that life in Baghdad is preferable to the District so her party can lose a party-line vote 204 to 232 instead of 203 to 232? If she thinks the Iraq war is an appropriate starting point for debate about DC statehood, then I definitely don’t want her casting votes.

P.S. For the case against making a state of this city (!) and a proposal for a much better alternative, read this.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 4th, 2005 at 15:10 by wwb and is filed under National. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.